<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1996 (12) TMI 160 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86087</link>
    <description>Copper phthalocyanine in lump form, captively consumed in dye manufacture, was not shown to have attained marketability or a saleable condition, so it could not be treated as fully manufactured excisable goods merely because it matched the tariff description. The evidence did not show packing in containers or proof that the lump form was capable of sale and purchase in the market. The amended Rules 9 and 49 did not cure that defect, because the central question was whether the product had the character of goods at all. Its value therefore could not be included in aggregate clearances to deny the exemption under Notification No. 44/82.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Dec 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Aug 2011 11:36:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=123154" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (12) TMI 160 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86087</link>
      <description>Copper phthalocyanine in lump form, captively consumed in dye manufacture, was not shown to have attained marketability or a saleable condition, so it could not be treated as fully manufactured excisable goods merely because it matched the tariff description. The evidence did not show packing in containers or proof that the lump form was capable of sale and purchase in the market. The amended Rules 9 and 49 did not cure that defect, because the central question was whether the product had the character of goods at all. Its value therefore could not be included in aggregate clearances to deny the exemption under Notification No. 44/82.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Dec 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86087</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>